Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdev Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 March, 2019
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1882/2019
(Jagdev Singh Vs. State of M.P. and another)
Gwalior, dated: 01.03.2019
Shri Ramkishore Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S.S. Rajput, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Despite intimation sent by the State on 24.02.2019 to the victim, neither victim nor anyone appears for victim.
Case Diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. The present appeal u/S 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act assails the order dated 10.12.2018 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities) Distt. Morena whereby application preferred by the appellant herein u/S 438 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
Appellant apprehends arrest in connection with offences punishable u/Ss. 294, 323, 506-B of IPC and u/S. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered as Crime No.12/2008 at Police Station AJK District Morena.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the appeal and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant 2 of anticipatory bail is made out.
The allegation against the petitioner is that he had threatened and uttered abusive words against the complainant who happens to be a member of SC/ST community. The offence is of 2008 and petitioner has not yet been arrested.
Considering the allegation made, it seems that prima facie there is evidence against the petitioner, but on account of his absconsion, investigation could not be completed against petitioner. In such situation, no case for anticipatory bail is made out.
However, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, it is directed that in offences involving punishment upto seven years imprisonment the police may resort to the extreme step of arrest only when the same is necessary and the applicant does not cooperate in the investigation. The petitioner should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation. If the petitioner cooperates in the investigation then the occasion of his arrest should not arise.
For ready reference and convenience the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) are enumerated below:-
7.1. From a plain reading of the provision 3 u/S.41 Cr.P.C., it is evident that a person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on his satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. A police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the police officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured. These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on facts.
7.2. The law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. The law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.
7.3. In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required ? What purpose it will serve ? What object it will achieve ? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. Before arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 Cr.P.C.
9. Another provision i.e. Section 41-A Cr.P.C.
aimed to avoid unnecessary arrest or threat of arrest looming large on the accused requires to be vitalised. This provision makes it clear that in all cases where 4 the arrest of a person is not required under Section 41(1) Cr.P.C., the police officer is required to issue notice directing the accused to appear before him at a specified place and time. Law obliges such an accused to appear before the police officer and it further mandates that if such an accused complies with the terms of notice he shall not be arrested, unless for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that the arrest is necessary. At this stage also, the condition precedent for arrest as envisaged under Section 41 Cr.P.C. has to be complied and shall be subject to the same scrutiny by the Magistrate as aforesaid."
In view of above and considering the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra), this Court is inclined to direct thus:
(i) That, the police may resort to the extreme step of arrest only when the same is necessary and the petitioner fails to cooperate in the investigation.
(ii) That, the petitioner should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation. If the petitioner cooperates in the investigation then the occasion of the arrest should not arise.
With the aforesaid directions, the present anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.
C.c. as per rules.
(Sheel Nagu) Judge SS SATEESH KUMAR SEN 2019.03.02 13:21:17 -08'00'